So, what's better to shoot in? Technicolor Cinestyle? Or

Technicolor, same as the classics such as 2 Days in the Valley and Two Days in the Valley. Not a bad idea to have a RAW camera operating too. I don't even know what these words mean btw

File: 1450507349305.jpg (105KB, 497x335px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 497x335px

>shooting 8bit 420 on a Cannon DSLR in 2017
>mfw

Why torture yourself like that? Just get a GH5 with some Veydra primes or something, it can shoot 10bit 422 4K log internally. Leave the cannon to take pretty pictures, get a modern mirrorless for video.

daily reminder the only way to make a decent film is to hire professionals to take care of the technical elements for you (sound, cinematography, art direction, color grading, etc) so you can focus on the actual mood and story you're trying to project rather than the minutia of "should I shoot in raw or cinestyle"? and "what's a better shotgun microphone, the Rode NTG 3 or the Sennheiser 416?"

I can only name like 5 successful directors who shoot their own films, and even they generally have professional gaffers and key grips and tons of assistants to help make their visions come true

if you aren't paying professionals to do 99% of the technical work for you your film is going to come out like amateurish shit. even fucking Shane Carruth hired a sound designer and a gaffer for Primer.

the reason I'm saying this is, most people in these types of threads are concerned with making their films look "professional" when in reality, the only fucking way to do that is to hire PROFESSIONALS. it should be self explanatory but for some reason it isn't obvious to you people and you keep trying to attain something that just isn't possible without $$$$ and pros who know what the fuck they're doing. If you really wanna make a fucking film, get serious and take out a fucking loan so you can get these people to do the heavy lifting for you. I promise you this is the only way.

>>82512611
For the past 2-3 years Panasonic and Sony have been dominating the Video market so hard with their newest cameras that Canon isn't even worth considering at this point if you're doing only video work. The A7sII with its billboard sensor that could get light out of a black hole and the GH5 that will do 10Bit 4K have left Canon completely behind. It's sad too, because I bet Canon could shit out a monster that could do 4K/60p/422 or 4K/24p/RAW internally to SD if they really wanted.

>>82512987

to elaborate on this, there's a reason every single film has a massive crew with tons of different people SPECIALIZING in niche tasks

it's because it takes decades to get good at even one of those fucking tasks and just isn't feasible for one person to juggle art direction, cinematography, location sound mixing, color grading, sound engineering, etc etc etc.

if it takes 15+ years to get good at even ONE of these artistic domains, like cinematography for example, what the fuck makes you think you can become amazing at all of them in just a few years and make a 'professional' quality short film? it's not possible

you have to give up this one man band dream and just fucking pay the pros to do the work. and if you can't afford it then you have to settle for specializing in one of the many technical tasks and giving up the directing dream. or just give up filmmaking entirely. there's a reason every famous director is a fucking jew, it's because they have the money to hire professionals to make their dreams come true.

>>82512987
>>82513282
I don't think anyone in this thread is going out to produce a 50 million dollar blockbuster. I think this thread is more along the lines of a 5 minute long youtube short film that gets 10,000 views.

>>82513819
Challenge accepted.

>>82513100
Canon still have the best variety and value of lenses, which is what really counts

>>82513282
Sure, if you're trying to be some kind of Jewish Hollywood bigshot working on hundred million dollar movies, but if you're making short movies for little festivals, you can get away with doing a whole bunch more yourself. It actually isn't that hard to get the basics down of each category to the point where you have a moderate enough level of skill in all these areas and can produce some half decent content yourself or with a team of 2-3. If you enjoy the technical aspects of it, it's actually really fun to learn the different functions of a camera, how a lens takes in light, etc. and after you've fucked around with everything for fun for a few months and made a few garbage short movies from start to finish yourself, you really learn a lot from it and can start making some pretty good stuff.

>>82514350
i'm not referring to becoming "some kind of Jewish Hollywood bigshot working on hundred million dollar movies"

I'm taking about being capable of even making a short film as worthwhile as this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE8kTPtLftI

forget about whether you even like the film or not, you can't deny that the visuals are clean and cinematic and *professional*, reminiscent of something you'd see in a movie theater, same with the sound, and the art direction, and the fucking graphic design, and the music.... THIS is what I fantasized about as a young teenager. Not making shitty DSLR films and getting into the fucking Kansas City halloween film festival or whatever.

sorry if I'm coming off as bitter. I am bitter. this is all I ever wanted to do and yet faggots like Xavier Dolan get a free fucking ride from their rich daddies. here you go son, here's 250,000 dollars, go make your film with dozens of professionals catering to your every need and making your vision come true. meanwhile I spent years making cheap garbage with DV cameras in the late 2000s and only getting into local film fests. that's not what I wanted. and I doubt it's what you want either. Fuck filmmaking if you aren't rich or heavily connected.

>>82514585
This video was shot with a $500 Panasonic mirrorless camera with the stock kit lens. Getting good cinematic looking shots really isn't that hard with modern mirrorless 4K cameras and a bit of color work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVZ5Oo8ON4Y

>>82514329
There are EF to MFT and E-mount adapters.

Since autofocus means jackshit for video, the lock-in effect of having proprietary AF lens system really isn't there.

>>82514585
Another example, this was shot with a $900 Black Magic pocket camera. This camera is fantastic because it has a global shutter and will shoot 12 bit RAW files.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCb7kJp5TvI

Seriously, getting good cinematic looking shots is piss easy now.

>>82514585
You could probably get away with making that movie with a BMPCC, a low end cinema prime or maybe a decent photography lens, an MKE 600, and a few cheap photography lights. Most of the 'cinematic' look you see is usually just in the color grading, providing whatever camera you're using doesn't have a bad rolling shutter effect.

>>82513100
>>82514779
What Sony/Panasonic camera would you recommend?

>>82515301
If you're on a tight budget, the Panasonic G7 is an extremely powerful camera that comes with an amazing 14-42mm kit lens. It can sometimes rival the image quality of the GH5 which is nearly $1500 more. The upside of the more expensive GH5 is that it is brand new and will do 4K 10bit 422 color at 30FPS, which is unheard of in a mirrorless camera until now and gives really good flexibility when color grading. For a bit more money than that the Sony A7S II is by far the best choice if you need amazing low light performance, due to its full frame sensor that is only 12 megapixels.

>>82515448
Thanks, time to research.
A few years ago, the Canon 5D Mark2 used to be the go-to for indie stuff. Not anymore?

>>82515764
Panasonic, Sony, and to a slightly lesser extent Olympus and Fujifilm have outdone canon in video at this point in time. It's really, really hard to beat a G7 + with any of the Lumix brand lenses at that price point.